" . . . not sure how we have agreed to be willing to work for less? We have the ability to work less with same pay rate." - SaltyDog
SaltyDog, no argument with the fact that the MOU allows one to work less days at the same pay rate. And for those who are in a financial position (i.e. financially flush, military retirement, side business, dual incomes) where working less days is not a hardship to the family – then taking advantage of this opportunity to spend time home benefits (especially as the benefits are still in place). I venture to say those parameters don’t apply to most, however.
One can present the MOU as an opportunity to spend time with the family, but however you want to wrap it up, it still amounts to less pay - couple that with the donation of ‘sick banks’ - the company has laid the burden of their business model on the shoulders of the union - where it should not of been placed. Past dealings with this company should be a clue that how we think this MOU should be perceived is not necessarily what the company’s ‘meaning and intent’ will be.
Even though there are a few who have expressed their disappointment with regard to participation, one can argue that the company might look at the large percentage of participants who are willing to bring home a smaller salary - and conveniently forget the real reason for membership participation. I harbor no illusion that the company will come to the negotiation table with reasonable openers - even if the economy has turned around.
The overall success of the MOU will not only be measured if the union is able to avert a furlough - but by the membership showing a unified front and taking pride in what will be achieved.